Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s submission, filed 26 May 2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the examiner.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (USPN 2019/0103442).
With regard to claim 20,
Choi et al. disclose a display apparatus, comprising: a substrate (101); a plurality of pixels (P) having a plurality of subpixels (R,B,G,W); a pattern portion (108) disposed on the substrate and formed to be concave between the plurality of subpixels; and a reflective portion (of 115) disposed to be inclined on the pattern portion, wherein: the plurality of subpixels include a first layer (113) and a second layer (111); the first layer is adjacent to the reflective portion on the substrate (See fig. 4); the first layer includes a plurality of concave portions (See fig. 4); the second layer is on the first layer (see fig. 4); and an inclination angle of the reflective portion is proportional to a maximum thickness of the second layer and a thickness of the first layer in one of the plurality of concave portions (necessarily), wherein the first layer (113) and second layer (111) are made of organic material (see paragraphs 32 (for first layer 113) and 68 (for second layer 111)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Claims 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, the inclination of the reflective portion being defined as claimed. Claim 1 is therefore allowed and claim 21 would be allowed if rewritten in independent form. Claims 2-19 are allowed due to their dependence upon claim 1 and claims 22-25 would be allowed due to their dependence upon claim 21.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
While the applicant argues that Choi et al. fail to disclose where the first layer and second layer are made of organic material, asserting that Choi et al. disclose an organic emitting layer 113 but layer 111 is a metal oxide material, the examiner maintains that Choi et al. do disclose organic emitting layer 113 and the material of layer 111 is selected from a number of organic conductive polymers (see paragraph 68, as indicated in the rejection above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights